logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.09.04 2015고정1572
명예훼손
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who is responsible for the representative of occupants of the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office Btel from around December 2013.

The Defendant posted a notice as “public notice” on the front wall of an elevator on each floor of the instant officetel from June 16, 2014 to July 2014. The Defendant posted the notice as “public notice” on the wall of the elevator in front of the instant officetel and inside the elevator inside the elevator. The contents of the notice were as follows: “The head of the C office (the title director) who is an employee of the C office of the C office (the title director) has removed the book and documents of the management office, the watch and the watch of the office in order to cause the resident to see the resident’s representative; “In addition, ten persons, who are service employees of the 16th of June, 200, Da (the title director), who are in charge of the C office of the C office of the C office of the management office, shall spread false facts to see the present representative, and shall be neglected only to the private person’s management affairs.”

However, on May 30, 2014, the victim C had only moved the books used by the defendant to the five-story warehouse in the above officetel management office, but there was no other fact that the defendant brought documents or cash in the underground. There was no other fact that there was a person who was around June 16, 2014 and occupied the management office without permission. In the case of officetels, there was no legal defect that the victim did not have a housing manager qualification, but in the case of officetels, there was no legal error that the victim would take the management office.

Accordingly, the defendant has damaged the reputation of the victim by openly pointing out facts and false facts.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of public notice;

1. Articles 307(1) and 307(2) of the Criminal Act regarding the relevant criminal facts (the point of defamation by the publicly alleged fact) of the Criminal Act;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. The Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

arrow